Her Campus Logo Her Campus Logo
Culture > Entertainment

Is Ryan Murphy the Real Monster? A Review of Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story

The opinions expressed in this article are the writer’s own and do not reflect the views of Her Campus.
This article is written by a student writer from the Her Campus at Colgate chapter.

Most of us, although not alive during the time of the original trials, have heard about the Menendez brothers and the murder of their parents, Kitty and José. Now, 35 years after the original crime, this infamous case is being brought back into the spotlight following Ryan Murphy and Ian Brennan’s new season, Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story. Murphy, a television writer, director, and producer, has been in the news before, especially following the first season of the Monster series, Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story, for completing this project against the families of Dahmer’s victims’ wishes. Murphy has been quoted defending this continued series by saying that the new show is the “best thing that has happened to the Menendez brothers in 30 years in prison”. However, many viewers and the brothers have disagreed with this statement, as the show does not cast the brothers in a ‘truthful’ light. 

Erik and Lyle Menendez, 18 and 21 years old at the time, murdered their parents on August 20, 1989, in their Beverly Hills home. The boys first tried to blame the murders on the mafia and shady business dealings. However, following the murders, the lavish and quick shopping spree the brothers went on put them under the police’s supervision. The brothers ended up being arrested 6 months after the murders when Judalon Smith, the mistress of the psychologist Erik and Lyle had been seeing, confessed she had heard the brothers admit to the crime. 

After two lengthy trials, the brothers were found guilty of first-degree murder and were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In the first trial, both of the brothers claimed that the murders were completed out of self-defense. José, the boys’ father, had sexually assaulted Lyle until he was eight and then started sexually assaulting Erik until the time of the murders. Lyle had confronted their parents in the days leading up to the crime for their actions against Erik, which then made the brothers believe their lives were in danger. This resulted in a mistrial, but in the second trial, the prosecution heavily focused on the idea that this defense was fabricated. The cultural scripts of the time did not support the idea that men could be sexually abused, which heavily pushed the jury to decide the brothers were guilty and did not act out of self-defense. 

The judgment in this case is being questioned as another examination due to new evidence is currently being held. A new verdict will arrive in November. 

As for the Netflix documentary, critics were quick to jump on the seemingly inaccurate representations of the brothers. From the beginning of the documentary, the brothers each fall into typical entertainment tropes of the protagonist and the antagonist. Lyle, the older brother, is shown to be angry, immature, and manipulative of Erik and the situation. He rarely shows true remorse for their actions, and he acted quickly in the documentary to become a financial powerhouse following the murders. On the other hand, Erik is shown to be submissive, gentle, and pitiful, as he is shown to carry the massive burden of their actions. These two distinct character traits appear simplified to the viewer, as their individuality is stripped and their identities as real and not fictional become blurred. Erik himself has been quoted following this documentary that “Murphy shapes his horrible narrative through vile and appalling character portrayals of Lyle and me and disheartening slander.” 

In addition to the character portrayals, critics have slammed the show for the order in which details are brought to the surface. For viewers who know nothing about the case, the opening episodes that include the brothers on their lavish spending sprees create an unshakable impression that the actions against their parents were done simply from a financial standpoint. In the fifth episode, “The Hurt Man”, a single-shot interview of Erik detailing the abuse from his father is shown. Including these details later on in the documentary only combats pre-existing perspectives for the viewer instead of drawing focus on this central aspect of the crime. In the final episode, heartfelt moments between Kitty and José flash between scenes of the brothers planning the murder. The director’s choice to finish the documentary this way inspires sympathy in the viewer, diminishing the influence of the heavy and gruesome abuse stories that were previously detailed. 

During their time in prison, the brothers have worked with other inmates who have experienced childhood sexual abuse and trauma. The primary societal script that is washed away in this documentary is the prevalence of sexual abuse against males and how there was a strong distrust of their story. Erik, in a statement released by his wife Tammy, was quoted as saying: 

“It is sad for me to know that Netflix’s dishonest portrayal of the tragedies surrounding our crime has taken the painful truths several steps backward- back through time to an era when the prosecution built a narrative on a belief system that males were not sexually abused, and that males experienced rape trauma differently than women.”

Furthermore, the directors took creative liberties in creating an intense incestuous relationship between the brothers within the show. Throughout the entire trial and to the present, the brothers have denied any relationship between them. Using this taboo subject as entertainment is morally reprehensible, as Murphy and Brennan are further tainting the story that has already had to surpass multiple societal barriers. 

I have always enjoyed watching crime documentaries and television shows. However, they dehumanize those affected when they are created concerning real cases without consent from the involved parties or proper representations. This raises the question of whether entertainment value is worth the heartache and manipulation of real people’s stories. I would have to say it is not.

Although most of the representations in this documentary are worth scrutiny, it is a reasonable basis to see how far society has come in perceiving sexual abuse, especially towards men, since the 1990s. There is always more that can be done. For more information, look at Love is Respect or RAINN (Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network). 

Anna Martin

Colgate '25

Anna Martin is a senior at Colgate University studying Biology and Philosophy. She loves coffee, a good movie, and rainy weather.